Tag Archives: research

I have told you that you need to research before buying anything so many times that I have had nightmares about it. I dream that you go out and grab any old product off of the shelf, simply because it is shiny and new. You didn’t do your homework. You just took whatever caught your eye, took the toy home and then proceeded to become disillusioned. I warned you, didn’t I? The problem is, no one seems to be listening. The Pew Research Center says that only 58% of you are researching purchases online before you buy.

This Pew study doesn’t distinguish how the “online research” happens. This can include doing simple searches, heading to a product website or asking for opinions via a social networking service. Any of these methods of obtaining information will work. It doesn’t matter how you do your research, it simply matters that you do. That which sounds too good to be true usually is, young grasshopper.

If you are in the market for a new product – ANY product – don’t just read the specs listed by the manufacturer. Don’t make a decision based on how good something looks, or even how shiny it is. Read reviews. Talk to people who have bought or tested the same item. Do a few online searches. Heck, check with the Better Business Bureau to make sure there aren’t complaints lodged against the company you want to purchase from.

Just a few moments ago, Aardvark co-founder Max Ventilla confirmed that a deal has been signed with Google. While the details haven’t yet been released, I can only think positive things will come of this merger. If you haven’t heard of Aardvark yet – or are not using it – shame on you! I have a feeling that this little service is going to become very huge, very quickly… thanks to the backing Google will bring.

Aardvark is a new tool that lets you tap into the knowledge and experience of friends, and friends of theirs. Simply send the service a question – via the web, IM, email, Twitter or iPhone – and you’ll get a quick response. Your answers will come from people who have the right experience and know-how to help you, and who have friends in common (or similar tastes).

If you need information but don’t know where to start, that’s when you turn to Aardvark. You can ask anything, from general research, to tips and advice, and even get second opinions on products and services you find! You don’t have time to sift through a ton of pages looking for the right thing, nor to spend hours in a conversation with someone. Aardvark cuts all of that unnecessary legwork out for you, usually in under ten minutes!

Check it out for yourself, and let me know your thoughts. Did Google make a smart move in grabbing up this nifty start-up before any competition could?

I’ve been in the Internet business for many years now. Some of what I’ve done has been very successful. Some of it has been – not so much so. I’d like to think I’ve managed to do fairly well for myself, though. Chris B. emailed me recently, commending me on the things I’ve been able to accomplish. He is working on a paper for his Economics class, and wanted to approach his from a different angle than other students – that of the Internet business. He asked me to answer some questions to help him with his research, and I was more than happy to oblige!

Owning and operating a website is something that many people take for granted. They all claim it’s easy to do. Being successful, though, is something else entirely. I know you started Lockergnome many years ago. What brought you into this sort of business? Lockergnome started back in 1996. There was no such thing as blogging, so I used email as a means of communicating. The email newsletter still goes out several days a week, to more than 100,000 people. No one else was distributing information this way back then. I was finding awesome tips and tricks for Windows and other software, and wanted to be able to share the info with others. This is what is behind the beginning of Lockergnome. I have plans to be adjusting things about the site soon, though!

Many people who are not tech savvy wonder how Internet businesses make money – especially if there’s only content and not products to buy. How have you managed to make money with your content, including things like AdSense? You have to find a way to do what you’re doing better than anyone else. Leverage your assets! The relationships I generate on Twitter are just as important as those on Lockergnome or my blog. You have to think that your brand is distributed. Lockergnome is still around, and will be for the long haul. I am making money through sponsorships and such, or even through consulting. It’s about spinning plates – having more than one financial leg to stand on.

The Internet is always changing – there are new services and technologies popping up daily. This means that existing ones must grow and change in order to keep up. Do you find that you have to constantly grow and change yourself in order to stay fresh, and at the front? Once Wicket stopped arguing with me over which social sites are more important, I was able to clear my thoughts enough to answer this. Wicket is right about one thing, though. You have to think outside of your box. The Internet is your box – but you have to think beyond it. Go where the conversations are at. Engage conversations of your own. Don’t confine yourself inside your little box (your own website). Ultimately, you have to adapt.

Do you really feel that any competition exists between you and other bloggers? Or do you feel that all the different bloggers and sites kind of flow together? This is a very astute observation. When information goes out, it doesn’t matter where it came from. The information is what is important. It’s all about staying relevant, and realizing you don’t really have “competition”. It’s about your value add. What are you doing that’s different? What are you bringing to the global conversation? I know I’m giving rise to voice for people via Lockergnome and Geeks. If people use my tools, there’s a greater chance they’ll be seen and heard. It’s all about having a balance. I’d rather get along and share things with my colleagues, rather than view them as “competition”.

Running a business on the Internet is drastically different than running any other types of business. What kinds of costs are associated with running your business? Do you have employees? It’s a business, bottom line. We have things set up so that we have contract employees, and regular ones. We try to keep our costs extremely low. We work right out of our home, as do our employees. Therefore, we don’t have office overhead costs. We file taxes, just like with any other business. The major costs of course, are the people we pay for the work we do. And a note to add – they are some of the best!

It could be argued that you’re now famous for live streaming your life. What did live streaming change for you, if anything? I honestly don’t think I’m famous at all, and especially not for live streaming. If anything, I’m “famous” (or INfamous) for those stupid TechTV bloopers that will apparently never die!! Live streaming has made me more aware that there are so many people out there who are interested in what we’re doing, and where we’re heading. I’ve also learned to be aware of the things I say and do.

Live streaming isn’t recommended for everyone, that’s for sure. I wish people would remember I’m not a monkey. I don’t just sit and entertain everyone all day long. I work! And I just happen to keep the live stream running so you can work along with me. Good luck on your paper, Chris B. Let me know how it turns out.

Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

Looks as though Microsoft is killing Encarta (both the Web site and disc series). Over the years, I can count on one hand how many times I used the service – despite having owned several editions (and, certainly, being online since its inception). Luckily, I think I received those DVDs as gifts, so I was never out anything. I’m sure Wikipedia marginalized Encarta, much like Google Maps marginalized Microsoft Streets & Trips (on my desktop, at least).

Does this come to any surprise to you? I asked on Twitter:

chrispirillo: Microsoft is killing Encarta. Despite owning several copies in the past, I never used it. You?

What was the last magazine you read? Every once in awhile, a magazine floats through my house with an article that catches my attention. The May, 2008 issue of Scientific American has on the cover “Science 2.0: The Risks and Rewards of Web-Based Research”. Whoa… I thought that maybe this would be an interesting article, but I wasn’t sure how it would turn out. I wasn’t sure if Scientists are embracing the Collaborative Web, or if they’re pushing it away. One quote in the article said: “Although Wiki’s are gaining, Scientists have been strikingly slow to embrace one of the most popular Web 2.0 applications: Weblogging (Blogging)”.

The four key concepts of the article are:

Science 2.0 generally refers to new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on.

Proponents say these “open access” practices make scientific progress more collaborative and therefore more productive.

Critics say scientists who put preliminary findings online risk having others copy or exploit the work to gain credit or even patents.

Despite pros and cons, Science 2.0 sites are beginning to proliferate; one notable example is the OpenWetWare project started by biological engi­neers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The first generation of World Wide Web capabilities rapidly transformed retailing and information search. More recent attributes such as blogging, tagging and social networking, dubbed Web 2.0, have just as quickly expanded people’s ability not just to consume online information but to publish it, edit it and collaborate about it—forcing such old-line institutions as journalism, marketing and even politicking to adopt whole new ways of thinking and operating.

Science could be next. A small but growing number of researchers (and not just the younger ones) have begun to carry out their work via the wide-open tools of Web 2.0. And although their efforts are still too scattered to be called a movement—yet—their experiences to date suggest that this kind of Web-based “Science 2.0” is not only more collegial than traditional science but considerably more productive.

I don’t think Science could be hurt by more collaboration. By mixing more Macro with more Micro may produce more interesting conversations within the Scientific community. The potential for collaboration to exist is Infinity… in both directions.

[rsslist:http://shop.tagjag.com/products/science+fair+projects]

Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

Imagine my surprise when a few friends of mine from the Netherlands emailed to let me know that I was featured in a video about Wikipedia! There was a link in the beginning of their video to a video I had done about Wikipedia, discussing how we can use them as a source to find out truth and information. I’ve often talked about Wikipedia in the past, listing it as a resource that should always be fact-checked. However, it’s the future of information distribution. I feel it falls short in some areas, yes. However, it’s strength far outweighs their weaknesses.

So I went on a search, and came across the video in question on YouTube. The first thing you hear and see after their logo flashes through is the video that we recorded! What the producers decided to do is clip about the bottom half, which eliminates chat and my sponsor logos. Most concerning to me, is they also eliminated credit. We produced this video… and did not get credit. The Truth According to Wikipedia is an amazingly well-produced video.

While I think it’s great that they used and edited my work, I’m very upset that they did not give me credit. It’s quite well done, so on the one hand I’m proud to have been a part of what they’ve come up with. But of course… the other hand is my disappointment in not being asked to use my content, or even so much as giving me credit for my original work. As traditional journalists, they should have given credit where credit is due.

I’m not asking that they take the video down, since it was so well done. But I do think I should get proper credit. If you’re going to use something that another person has produced… give them credit for the work. Ask them if it’s ok to use! Most of the time, I will give you permission, and ask for a copy of what you put together. Is it really the truth, and the right way of doing things by leaving out where you got the information you used?

[rsslist:http://shop.tagjag.com/products/research]

Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

James writes: “Recently doing a project for school, I have decided to compose a Top 5 List of ways to find information. I feel that these may help anyone who’s looking for information, and the community at large.”

Google It. Google has become, undoubtedly, the world’s largest and most comprehensive search engine. Although Yahoo may have that really cool voice when you click the exclamation point, that is not a reason to use that particular search engine. However, if for any reason, you find any search engine better than Google, use it! All in all, you should make your primary way of searching for information in a search engine. Also, you may wish to type in “Pirillo *what you’re searching for* to receive results about anything Chris has blogged (or vlogged?) about. For example, typing in “Pirillo Garlic Recipes” will bring you to the blog where Chris talked about all the things you can do with garlic in food.

Sign up for an internet question-answer site like Answerbag (recommended) or Yahoo Answers. These are sites in which you post questions and other people in the community answer your question based on their own personal knowledge and/or research that they have done especially for you. These sites can have your question answered in less than 30 seconds. But be warned, these sites can become very addicting when asking and answering questions.

Ask the community in Chris’ chat room. People are always around 24/7/366 (in this year’s case) talking and asking questions. Don’t be afraid to dive in and ask any one of us any question at all. Who knows, that one person in the chat room may have the answer that you have been looking for for a while but could never find out. Asking our community and joining in on our conversations is always fun and just you just might be able to find an answer. However, don’t just ask questions, answer them too! Give back to the community and make ours a more pleasurable one with your input.

Don’t be afraid to use Wikipedia! Just because the community at large is able to edit all entries does not automatically make all the data inside its articles false. Across my researches, I have never found one problem with the information available on Wikipedia and neither have any of my teachers. If your looking for quick information, go to Wikipedia and search for the topic. You’ll be surprised by the amount of data that will be available to you (and most likely correct). Use your common sense in determining whether the information you find is correct or incorrect (for example, “The violin is a stringed instrument with no strings,” would obviously be an incorrect statement. If you must, back up the data you find on Wikipedia with another source. Also, just don’t blame Wikipedia for all your woes. Any person can put up a web site and just because it’s not Wikipedia doesn’t make the information automatically correct.

If all else fails (or even if all else succeeds), go to your local library. Libraries have a vast amount of information available for free that you could use for research. Also, if it is a formal project (either school or occupational), many people prefer published documentation to the unpublished information. Librarians are kind people who are willing to direct you in the direction of the information you are looking for. Theoretically, they are your human, alive version of Google. Books have been around for centuries, even before Johannes Gutenberg, and will never fail to be a good source of information.

[rsslist:http://shop.tagjag.com/products/research]

Want to embed this video on your own site, blog, or forum? Use this code or download the video:

http://live.pirillo.com/ – Back in ancient times there was a thing called an "encyclopedia" – it was a disgusting piece of technology that used tree pulp and ink to store information. The so-called "paper" was bound in volumes – about 26 or 27 of them – which contained information on every word, noun, and proper noun known to exist at that time.

Using this technology was slow, painful, and often outdated – the volumes needed to be updated in bulk since they did not have the ability to be updated dynamically. You also needed to buy this information! Costing upwards of $2000 for the entire set, salesmen would actually encourage people to purchase an encyclopedia set once a year!

Thankfully, we live in modern times where we have Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, essentially, the anti-encyclopedia. It contains most of the same information of encyclopedias plus information you generally would not be able to find. Plus, it’s updated on-demand.

Some professors don’t approve of Wikipedia – they claim it’s not a reliable resource. To that point, they may be right: anyone can edit Wikipedia, which can lead to inaccuracies; however, Wikipedia can be a great resource for starting any research project and pointing you in a good direction.

Should you use Wikipedia as your only resource? No, you need multiple resources to try and come close to understanding what the truth is behind a situation.

Should you ignore Wikipedia? Absolutely not! It’s a great resource that provides a ton of value – free of charge – for anyone who is researching any topic.